SeaDemon Says

We may have left the previous century more than a decade ago, as we have left the pains of the May 13th tragedy 43 years ago; but believe me, the game played by the politicians has not changed much. According to Dato’ Seri J.J Raj Jr, the Opposition parties back in 1969 had touched on issues such as the Malay “special rights”, “Malaysia for Malaysians”, “Equality, Justice, and Equal Opportunities for All”, while an Islamist party put up the slogan “Race, Religion, and Country.”

This all sounds eerily familiar today when people are challenging Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, Dong Zong’s claims, Hudud so on and so forth. All that had been agreed upon by our forefathers so we could all become Malaysian are now being questioned. Racial and religious extremism has reared its head yet again. However, this isn’t the first time since the May 13th tragedy that racial tension has been on a spike. I will come to this later.

In 1969, despite intelligence from the Special Branch, the Prime Minister decided to hold the elections. There was a campaign period of about three weeks after nomination day in April 1969 until polling day on 10th May 1969. A long cooking period brought about an explosive outcome. Racial tension had always been high, with the Opposition parties organising almost weekly demonstrations and strikes to fuel the tension. We see this happening today with several opposition-linked movements disrupting lives in several cities at the same time. On 24th April, 1969, an UMNO man, Encik Kassim bin Omar, was riding his motorcycle when he was stopped by a group of youths who assaulted him so viciously that he succumbed to his injuries. The youth then smeared his face with red paint that was used to write anti-government slogans moments before the assault took place.

On 4th May 1969, Police Constables doing their rounds in the early hours of the morning in Kepong, chanced upon several men who were writing anti-government slogans on the road. When they questioned the youths, they were attacked with iron rods, firewood and stones. The policemen retreated to the nearby market but the youths continued to attack them. One of the policemen opened fire and unfortunately killed one of the youths. As a contrast, the UMNO member was buried without much noise, but the Labour party had other ideas for their fallen member.

The Labour Party then had the youth’s body kept at a funeral parlour in Jalan Sultan. They then applied for a permit to hold a funeral procession. The OCPD of KL had rejected the permit as there was clear and present danger that the situation would turn explosive. However, this decision was overruled by the Home Ministry provided the procession followed the pre-determined routes. The procession attracted thousands including members of the Communist Party of Malaya and its sympathizers and was held on the 9th May, 1969, less than 24 hours before polling day. The procession participants shouted anti-government slogans, and hurled abuses at policemen on duty, calling them “running dogs” and other derogatory terms. When the police refused to engage them, they hurled abuses at the Malay bystanders shouting, “Die, Malays (Malai Si).” They did not keep to their approved routes, but made stops to hurl abuses at other races, harangued them, and even stopped in front of the UMNO building on Jalan Chow Kit.

As we know, the Alliance (UMNO, MCA, MIC) suffered a setback. And most sensitive was the state of Selangor, where DAP won four seats, Gerakan (which was an opposition party then) won four, and an Independent won one; the Opposition had won half of Selangor’s seats. As a result, victory parades were organized on a large scale and without police permit. The mobs became unruly, rowdy, and hooliganism ruled the day in defiance of the rule of law. They went to predominantly Malay areas, particularly Kampung Baru, challenged the Malays and hurled insults at them. Some even went to Dato’ Harun Idris’s house to tell him that he was no longer the Menteri Besar of Selangor. Patience was running thin among the Malays. While Gerakan had apologized for the behaviour of some of its members, supporters of the DAP continued to display, in the words of Dato’ Seri Yuen Yuet Leng, “excessive Chinese chauvinistic” behaviour towards the Malays.

UMNO members demanded to Harun Idris to hold their victory procession as well, as they had not lost the elections. At first, Dato’ Harun was not keen, but after assurance that a police permit would be obtained, he agreed. Selangor UMNO branches were to send participants to Dato’ Harun’s residence by 7pm on 13th May 1969. While they were on their way, racial clashes, for whatever reason, broke out in the Setapak area. The thousands that have thronged Dato’ Harun’s residence just blew up and headed towards Setapak, very unlike the watered-down version I was told shown in ‘Tanda Putera.’

The police did everything to maintain law and order, that even staff from Bukit Aman and recruits from the Police Depot were deployed to assist in maintaining law and order. Curfew took effect and strong personalities prevailed. In Negeri Sembilan, Dato J.J Raj Jr who was the state’s Chief Police Officer quickly went to seek the audience of Tuanku Jaafar, the Yam DiPertuan Besar, and briefed His Majesty on the situation. True to the traditions of a great Ruler, Tuanku Jaafar analysed the proposals from the police, and then gave J.J Raj Jr a clear and simple but firm order:

“Go ahead and maintain law and order at any cost.”

It was His Majesty’s order that saved Negeri Sembilan from a total bloodbath, save for a case or two. Political leaders from both sides of the fence, and elements of secret societies were rounded up and held at the Pudu Jail in Kuala Lumpur. Demands from senior office holders from both sides were totally ignored by the police.

The other strong figure that came (back) at the right time was Tun Dr Ismail. Despite being ill, he returned to the Cabinet as the Home Affairs Minister and declared on national radio and television:

“Democracy is dead. I will not tolerate nonsense from anyone, irrespective of race, religion or colour.”

Tun Dr Ismail was from a rare breed. He was not a vote-catcher,brooked no nonsense from any quarter, and was absolutely impartial and fair-minded. The kind of man that a Home Affairs Minister should be, what more in times when we now see the ugly head of extremism coming back to haunt us all.

To cut a long story short on the 13th May 1969 tragedy, it was an event that shook us all up. Decades of pent-up feelings culminated in an explosion on that day. For whatever reasons it happened, I can only think of two reasons – one, being disrespectful of the agreements made by all races that have been enshrined in the Federal Constitution, and two, continuous provocation by those with political gains to be made at the expense of the uninformed. And this, as I have mentioned above, sounds eerily familiar today.

After that wake-up call in May 1969, Malaysians seem a bit more tolerant towards each other. This gave the police the opportunity to spend more time and effort in combating the second emergency against the communist terrorists that began a year earlier. It was during this emergency that the police was struck twice by the communist terrorists when they assassinated the IGP, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Hashim on 7th June 1974, and the CPO of Perak, Tan Sri Khoo Chong Khong on 13th November 1975. The National Monument dedicated to the sacrifices of the security forces during the First Emergency was also bombed on the 27th August 1975. You can read more about the Second Emergency in a previous posting of mine.

Towards the end of 1985, a team of 200 policemen under the orders of the Home Affairs Minister, Musa Hitam, laid siege on several kampung houses occupied by about 400 followers of Ibrahim Mahmud a.k.a Ibrahim Libya, a PAS personality, in Memali, Kedah. This happened when Prime Minister, (then Dato Seri) Dr Mahathir Mohamad was away in China. The police action resulted in 14 villagers and 4 policemen dead. The IGP, (then Tan Sri) Hanif Omar, who was away on study leave in England, had to return home immediately after his final law exams to attend to the matter. As a result, Musa Hitam resigned from his posts of Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister.

Racial chauvinism reared its ugly head again in the mid-1980s. Anwar Ibrahim, who was the Minister of Education then, wanted to convert several Chinese vernacular schools into National primary schools. The MCA was taken to task by DAP to ask for the government to repeal Section 21(2) of the education Act, 1961, and to adopt the “No Single Chinese School Closure” policy. The Minister refused to budge. Lim Kit Siang then called the MCA mere “passengers” on the Barisan Nasional ship.

In June 1987, according to Lim Kit Siang, the Deputy Education Minister from MCA, Woon See Chin spoke at an MCA Seminar enumerating certain grievances including certain schools were told to remove display of the crucifix in classrooms; non-Muslim students being coerced to recite phrases or follow certain ceremony which are repugnant to their personal religious beliefs or practices so on and so forth, things that happened during Anwar Ibrahim’s watch as the Education Minister. On 11th October, MCA, DAP and Gerakan joined by Dong Jiao Zhong protested against Anwar’s Ministry’s appointment of 100 non-Chinese senior assistants and principals to Chinese schools.

The UMNO Youth retaliated by organizing a mass rally of 10,000 members at the TPCA Stadium in Kampung Baru. Both UMNO and the Chinese-based organizations respectively called for the resignation of MCA Deputy President (and Labour Minister) Lee Kim Sai and Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim. A mammoth rally was planned in conjunction with UMNO’s 41st anniversary. Despite fears of another racial strife, Deputy Home Affairs Minister Megat Junid, and Deputy Prime Minister Ghafar Baba, assured the public that everything would be okay. The Prime Minister Dr Mahathir was away in Vancouver, Canada attending the Commonwealth Head of Governments Meeting.

The police thought otherwise. The media was already adding fuel to fire. The IGP, Tan Sri Mohammed Hanif Omar, who was in Singapore, flew home for a discussion with his Director of Special Branch, Datuk Rahim Noor, who had kept a close eye on the ugly development. Hanif then summoned his directors and senior officers to Fraser’s Hills for a secret meeting. The conclusion of that meeting was that the mammoth rally should not be allowed. The Directors went through a long list of names of potential trouble-makers and shortlisted 106.

When Dr Mahathir returned to Kuala Lumpur, Hanif immediately briefed on the situation and how bloodbath is imminent. Hanif also impressed upon Dr Mahathir that the responsibility to maintain law and order is the police’s and that Dr Mahathir’s role would only be necessary if those arrested were to be detained for longer periods. On 27th October 1987, with an ostensible reason for the police to precipitate an action, the 106 listed were arrested. Printing licenses were revoked and all rallies, including the planned mammoth UMNO rally. A bloodbath was averted, and just in time, 18 years after the 13th May tragedy.

We all know how touchy some subjects are. When representatives from MCA and MIC met with UMNO to discuss citizenship for the Chinese and Indians, they discussed all matters that are now enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The Rukunegara (National Principles) was born as a result of the 13th May tragedy. The five principles of the Rukunegara call for us, as Malaysians, to believe in God, to be loyal towards the King and Country, the supremacy of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and Courtesy and Morality. Nowadays, we hardly see any of those principles being upheld by politicians and laymen alike.

We see politicians using God as a front to achieve political ends; we see politicians and laymen ridiculing not just the King but also the Country; we question the Constitution and what had been agreed to by our forefathers; we champion breaking of laws through demonstrations and other acts of defiance; and we no longer show courtesy nor morality towards others. We, Malaysians, have lost our integrity and dignity as the peoples of this nation.

Stop whatever thoughts that we have, take a step back and think about what it was like back then, the struggles our forefathers endured to make us a nation. When we listen, listen fairly and objectively. Do not adopt the herd mentality of believing everything that you hear from friends or read on the Internet without verifying, or at least use the brain God gave you to weigh the logic of things.

Be thankful that we were born into a plural society. God asked us to learn from each other, not hate each other. If we do not attempt to learn from each other, then this nation will have a troubled future.

I ask you my friends, with the National Day and Malaysia Day around the corner, be more tolerant towards one another.

Selamat menghayati erti Kemerdekaan. Selamatkan Malaysia dari pelampau politik dan agama.

Hate me, but the Malays have always been the recognised natives of the land. I am not fanning racial sentiments, but merely pointing out that historically, the Malay Peninsula has always been the home of the Malays. The Malays then lived without boundaries, and flowed between islands in the Malay Archipelago, even with the conquest of Malacca by the Portuguese who were there to seek revenge against Muslims in 1511, and the subsequent colonization of Malacca by the Dutch in 1641, there was no stop to the flow of Malays between one point to the other. It was the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, a treaty that split the Malay Peninsula with Sumatra and the rest of the Malay Archipelago.

In my reply to The Mambang on her comment in a previous posting, I pointed out that the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 did not make the Malay states a colony of Great Britain:

The Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 did not make Britain a colonial power in the Malay States. The Dutch, already weakened by the Napoleonic Wars, had to concede that it could not match the growth of Singapore in the East Indies; therefore sought to abandon their claims to the north part of the Strait of Malacca, in exchange for the British not expanding to the islands south of Singapore. In addition, both nations will regard each other as a “favoured trading nation.” The gist of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 were:

i) British subjects would be given trade access with the Maluku Islands,
ii) The Dutch cedes all its establishments on the Indian continent (Dutch India) and any rights asssociated with them,
iii) Britain cedes Fort Malborough in Bencoolen and all its properties on the island of Sumatra and not to make any more treaties with any of its rulers or establish any more offices there,
iv) The Dutch cedes Malacca to Britain, never again to open any office on the Malay peninsula or make treaties with its rulers,
v) Britain withdraws its objections to Dutch occupation of Billiton (Belitung) island,
vi) The Dutch withdraws its objections to the British occupation of Singapore,
vii) Britain agrees not to establish any office on the islands of Karimun, of the islands of Batam, Bintan, Lingin or any other islands south of Singapore, or to make treaties with its rulers.

The British were cunning when it comes to acquiring territories. As in the case of Australia, in order to avoid any problems with the native people, they would declare the land as terra nullius (no-man’s land), and this, to a certain extent was applied to the Malay Peninsula. Although in the Federated Malay States the British were employed by the respective Sultans, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the British were here to reap the benefits of this land without wanting to give much back to the native people, but with a degree of subtlety.

In order to keep the Malays from creating trouble for the British, land reservations were introduced to transform the native Malay population into permanent agriculture peasants. It worked for the British well in 1900 when they introduced the Punjab Alienation of Land Act to control and supervise Punjabs as agricultural tribes. This was done on the basis of protecting and preserving the native people by secluding them from the immigrants who were invited to explore the country. The Malays were asked to grow food for the immigrants. As Sir Frank Athelstane Swettenham once said:

“The longer the Malay is kept away from the influence of civilization, the better it will be for him.”

The British brought in lots of immigrants directly for their benefit. Undeniably, they were the workforce badly needed to develop the country. The Indians were British subjects (India was a Colony, while Malaya was not). They were made to work in the estates, and as British subjects, were given basic necessities such as very basic accommodation and Tamil schools. The first Tamil school was opened in Penang in 1816. As the number of estates grew, so did the number of Tamil schools. By 1905, there were 13 government and Christian missionary Tamil schools, the latter were set up as a mean to proselytizing Christianity.

The Chinese were brought in to work the tin mines. Most were in Malaya to make money to be brought back to their families left back in the Mainland. As they had an allegiance to none, enriching themselves in order to achieve a good life once they return to China was a dream of virtually all the Chinese immigrants. Unlike the Malays, they were self-sufficient and very hard-working.

While the British set up the Pauper Hospital (now the Kuala Lumpur Hospital), the Chinese united and collected amongst them enough to set up the first Chinese hospital, the Tung Shin Hospital, where it still stands now, to treat Chinese miners who refused to seek treatment at the Pauper Hospital when the number of Chinese miners who died at the latter hospital increased drastically. They thought the British were killing them on purpose. As the Chinese came from different parts of China, tribal and gang wars were rampant. The British allowed Opium in in order to control them.

This was the way the British divided and ruled. Eventually, swayed by the profit they were earning from the Malay States that they forgot their promise to the Sultans which was to protect the interest and welfare of the Malays. The bulk of the Malays lived in rural areas and they had very minimal contact with the other races, the Chinese were basically in towns and tin mines, while the Indians were in rubber plantations. The effect to this was that the Malays remained backwards and were told to stay as peasants or tillers of the soil, the Chinese inherited all the tradings in the Malay States and became the richest residents, and the Indians remained as rubber-tappers without proper infrastructure. The Malays, according to Chai Hon-Chan:

“…merely retreated from the tide of commercial activity and material prosperity…whereas the British, Europeans, Chinese and Indians had the lion share of the country’s wealth…”

As a result, the Malays who were given land to cultivate, forced by economic disadvantages, began charging or creating a lien (collateral) over their land to the Chettiars. The Malays, already in a disadvantaged position, cried foul and started the “Malaya for Malays” movement in the late 1800s. EW Birch, the 8th British Resident of Perak, recognized this dire situation and quickly proposed a policy of preserving the Malay land. The only way to him to preserve the Malay race was to “free them from the clutches of those people who now remit to Indian large sums of money, which they bleed from the (Malay) people.”

This later became the Malay Reservation Land Act which spirit is preserved in the Malaysian Federal Constitution. Even Sir Frank Athelstane Swettenham conceded that something had to be done to preserve the Malays. He wrote:

“In the Malay sketches contained in this and a previous volume, I have endeavoured to portray,…the Malay as he is in own country, against his own picturesque and fascinating background…The position he occupies in the body politic is that of the heir to the inheritance. The land is Malaya and he is the Malay. Let the infidel Chinese and evil-smelling Hindu from southern India toil, but of their work let some profit come to him.”

For the same reason the British ignored Tan Cheng Lock’s cry of “Malaya for the Malayans.” In the 1930s, Chinese and Indian leaders addressing the Straits Settlements Legislative Council, appealed for some measures of self-government, and to be considered as Malayan Chinese and Indians having a stake in their country of birth and adoption. In my previous writing, The Road To Merdeka – Persekutuan Tanah China I explained at length how the non-Malay Malayan Democratic Union and the Java-leaning Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya, supporting the formation of the Malayan Union, had sought for immediate citizenship for the immigrants and a rule other than by the Malay Rulers respectively. It was at this juncture that the British had first offered Malaya its independence, but was rejected by UMNO fearing that the Malays, being minority in his own country, lacking education and economic backbone, might not survive against the other races soon after independence. The Singapore Institute of Management Malay Cultural and Muslim Society noted that the Malay man was an immigrant in his own country; confronted in his own world which he had little control.

Such was the state of the Malays in the Malay States that Dr Lennox A Mills noted:

“…when the British came, the Malay was a poor man in a poor country; when the British left, he was a poor man in a rich country.”

When the Communists ousted the Kuomintang from China in 1949, many overseas Chinese including those in Malaya and Singapore, did not know where to return to; while others sought for the unification of the Chinese in Malaya, with Communist China, through armed struggle. The more broadminded Chinese associations united to form the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), and together with UMNO, set aside their differences to work together in the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Elections in 1952. It was also in 1952 that the British gave Malayans their term: we can only discuss independence if the people of Malaya are united.

This happened when the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), that was previously formed to support the fight for the independence of India from the British, joined the Alliance in 1954. The MIC, under Sardhar Budh Singh, was very critical of the Malayan Union. Together under the Alliance, these parties won the first General Elections in 1955, winning all but one seat. This solid mandate by the people of Malaya, comprising of the Malayan Malays, immigrant Chinese and Indians, paved the way for the road to Merdeka.

The Reid Commission was formed in 1956, its members, Lord William Reid (Britian – Chair), Hakim Abdul Hamid (Pakistan), Sir Ivor Jennings (Britain), Hakim B Malik (India), and Sir William McKell (Australia) were proposed by the Constitutional Conference (comprised of members of Her Majesty’s Government, the four Malay rulers, and representatives of the Malayan government that had won the elections in 1955) and agreed by the Queen of England, and the four Rulers of the Federated Malay States representing the Malay States in Malaya. The Commission’s duty was to draft a proposal of the Constitution of Malaya that would incorporate the concepts of Federalism and Constitutional Monarchy, special position for the Malays, Islam as the religion of the Federation, and Bahasa Melayu as its official language, although the Chinese and Indians had their right to vernacular schools protected.

The Reid Commission was not, as portrayed by some quarters, a party to the discussions between the British and Malayan governments, and the Malay Rulers. Their duty was to draft and make recommendations to the Constitution of Malaya. These recommendations were accepted or rejected in agreement by the Constitution Conference – namely the British Government, the four Malay Rulers, and the Government of Malaya that had the mandate of 98 percent of the Malayan people.

The Malayan (subsequently Malaysian) Federal Constitution became the foundation of this nation, agreed upon by our forefathers who were united in their resolve to build a nation where all three races respect the historical background, rights, and nature of the other races, and to live as one in a country they call their own.

Hence, in my opinion, those who do not accept nor respect the agreement their forefathers had made, and the pain they had to go through, so their offspring could become citizens of this blessed nation, should surrender their citizenship and leave for another land of opportunity of their own choice. And Malays who have forgotten the oppression and degradation of dignity their forefathers faced, in my opinion, should also leave.

In the second part, I will touch on the build-up to the May 13 tragedy, the struggle against the Second Emergency, racial and religious extremism and the continual struggle for Malaysia to become one.

The article below was written on the eve of Malaysia Day, 2011.

It has been a year since the Prime Minister announced the doing-away with the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Ordinances.  It was my hope that the move would have been reciprocated with more mature acts by activists and opposition-linked movements.  The introduction of the Peaceful Assembly Act, 2012 was a good move in regulating both the authorities and assembly-organizers alike, but I don’t think the police were ready in their understanding of the requirements of the said law.  The organizers were just bent on breaking whatever law there is.

Looking back, I don’t know if doing away with the ISA was a good thing.  It was a good move; but being popular does not mean it is always necessarily a good thing.  All it needed was some tweaking to prevent it from being abused to achieve political and/or personal means.

In the New Straits Times dated 30th July 2006, Santha Oorjitham interviewed Mr Reginald Hugh Hickling, who assisted in drafting the Federal Constitution and the Internal Security Act, 1960:

Oorjitham: “Is it time for a review of the ISA? What about article 149 and 150 of the Federal Constitution, which permits infringement of human rights during emergencies, but only when necessary?”

Hickling: “With terrorism around the world, I don’t think it’s a good time.”

Oorjitham: “In 1987, you called for a review of the Constitution. Do you still think it is needed?”

Hickling: “No. It is not a good time. You have worldwide terrorism which acts as an inhibition against changing laws. You really want to tighten up laws rather than to relax them.”

———————————————————————————————————————————

“Sometimes a brave thing like this is necessary” – Tun Mohammed Hanif bin Omar, former Inspector-General of Police, commenting on the Prime Minister’s speech as it was being delivered to the nation.

I heard the Prime Minister’s 54th Merdeka cum Malaysia Day speech – all 33 paragraphs, on the radio. It is addressing the people’s concerns. When he took over the helm as the Prime Minister of Malaysia in April of 2009, he promised that he would study the Internal Security Act, 1960 comprehensively. Tonight, he announced that the Act itself would be abolished. So would the Banishment Act, 1959, Restricted Residence Act, 1933, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act, 1984. Apart from that, Section 27 of the Police Act, 1967 will be reviewed in the spirit of Article 10 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution.

The ISA will be replaced by an anti-terrorism Act that would only deal with subversive elements and elements of terrorism, and it would not be as sweeping as the ISA was.

How do I feel about it?

We will be celebrating our 48th year as Malaysia, and it is about time Malaysians show some degree in maturity and accountability in the way they write, speak and act. It is time for Malaysians to open up instead of having myopic views about things that do not represent their beliefs, be it personal or political. It is all about self-censorship. It is about nation-building, not nation-demolishing. It is telling us all to stop manipulating each other, or lie about things when we know the truth. It is about standing up not for ourselves, but for the longevity of this nation.

For BERSIH and the Police, it would mean that the rakyat have a better chance at exercising their freedom to assemble, of course within the limits of the law. The application for a permit to assemble has to be submitted to the police beforehand with all the prerequisites met. If they are met, the police will have to issue a permit and ensure that whilst the rights to assemble by one party is being upheld, the right to the use of roads by road users, the right to the peaceful conduct of business or life of others are also protected. If there is a dispute, both parties (organisers and the police) will have to fulfill the requirements of the law by going for a judicial review. The court of law has the final say – definitely not the organisers, definitely not the police.

It also means those who prefer to cause alarm through their seditious words will be dealt with other laws such as the Penal Code or the Sedition Act. Gone will be the days when the Prime Minister could order for the arrest of a journo just because she wrote something he personally did not like, or something to that effect. Journos should also be more responsible with what they write – write facts with a clear head and not driven by emotions. Write facts and not fabricate lies for political mileage and so on.

It also means the cry for the abolishment of the ISA and other laws deemed by the people to be oppressive now no longer need to be continued – as it is time for all of us Malaysians to stop whatever it is that we are doing that is tearing us as one people apart and start thinking collectively as one people instead of claiming that this small group of “we” represent the people as a whole. Remember, there is always two sides to a coin.

It also means the Police will now have more work to do in accordance to whatever laws they have left to guide them. But it would also mean that the Inspector-General of Police would have to educate his men that knowledge of the law is not to be taken lightly. How the absence of certain laws will dictate how our society would behave after today remains to be seen, as would the after-effects of this decision by the Prime Minister.

Ponder upon this – soon after the May 1969 tragedy, Malaysians were more cohesive than they are now. If you truly value this land we call our home, defend it together, not against one another. Use this new-found “freedom” to unite.

Selamat Menghayati Erti Kemerdekaan dan Selamat Mendalami Makna Penubuhan Malaysia.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Reginald Hugh Hickling also once said,

“As a lawyer, I’m all for its review but on whether it should be scrapped, I don’t know. You’ve got a multi-racial society [in Malaysia] in which emotions can run high very quickly.”

And in an interview on the Internal Security Act with Geoff Thompson on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2001 said that he was “sorry to say that, in the light of my own experience, I’m inclined to think you couldn’t really safely get rid of it at the moment.”

A mere five months later, his fears were realised by worldwide terrorist attacks.

I wrote this piece last year when there was an attempt by A Samad Said to twist history by calling Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak and others whom had fought for the independence of Malaya ‘British Lackeys’ (Barua British), and belittled the efforts by representatives of the Federation of Malaya (including the Chinese and Indian) by saying the independence was handed to them on a silver platter.  That was not the case at all, and efforts to explain the correct version of what happened must be an ongoing one.  Unfortunately, I do not see this being tasked to any Ministry, certainly not the Information Ministry.  It is sad that bloggers like I have to do the job for them.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

For someone like A Samad Said to say that the Tunku was merely an independence receiver shows the works of a fiction-writer’s mind (Yahoo! News (from Malaysiakini): Pak Samad – Tunku Merely Independence Receiver)

“To me, Tunku was not an independence fighter. He was a receiver, the person approved by the British to ‘receive’ independence… the British felt that the ‘receiver’ must be a person who can take care of its interests in Malaya.”

A fiction writer does not need to know facts, all he has to do is to conjure a litany of half-truths or mere fiction to write, and that was what he did during the forum. It also displays his lack of knowledge in the history of the nation.

In my previous “The Road to Merdeka” series, I have written somewhat extensively to bring readers to one structure of thinking, then explain that the independence was obtained through a constitutional struggle that culminated in the end of feudalism, power to govern was handed by the Malay rulers to the people of Malaya, whilst maintaining the institution of the Malay rulers albeit in a constitutional form.

When the Federated and Unfederated Malay States were perfidiously annexed by the British and lumped in with the Crown Colonies of Penang and Melaka via the Malayan Union on 1st April 1946, it was done so using threats and blackmail on the Malay rulers without consulting the people who were the Rulers’ subjects. Malays all over the peninsula protested in January of 1946 when they got to know of the British’s plan. On 1st March 1946, over 40 Malay political and cultural organisations (PAS had not been born yet) met and 41 of these organisations decided to form UMNO, and three days later, under Dato’ Onn Jaafar, UMNO was formed. It was through this galvanisation of the Malays, united against the Malayan Union that caused the very architect of the Malayan Union, Sir Edward Gent, to declare the Malayan Union unworkable given the resistance by the Malays, a little over a month after it was formed.

Let us also recall that among the organisations that supported the formation of the Malayan Union were the Indonesian-leaning, Malay-dominated PKMM, and the Malayan Democratic Union that was dominated by the other races wanting immediate and automatic citizenship through the Malayan Union.

In 1949, the British government announced that it was to grant eventual independence to Malaya, and issued another in 1952 saying that independence will only be given if the various races were united. But UMNO and MCA called the British’s bluff and fielded their candidates for the 1952 Kuala Lumpur Municipal Election on a common ticket. We all know how that went. That paved way for the Alliance when MIC joined forces and the Alliance won the 1955 General Elections resoundingly.

And how did the struggle for independence go soon after? It was not smooth at all. We all know the British created for the Tunku and TH Tan a hell of roadblocks that they had to lobby friends in the British Parliament before the Colonial Office would even see them.

Prior to this, Onn Jaafar had sought to open up UMNO’s membership to ALL Malayans and rename the party as the United Malayans National Organisation, but his call went unheeded by UMNO’s members. We know now whom the British had favoured when they made the second announcement in 1952. He left UMNO in August 1951 and formed the Independence of Malaya Party (IMP), a multiracial party and had probably hoped that Malayans would support it in order to be granted independence from the British, as it would fulfill the . He misjudged the Malayan people’s resolve, and eventually left the party too, to form Parti Negara, a party with restrictions to non-Malays as members, aimed at winning back the support of the Malays. In 1955, Dato Onn and Parti Negara failed to win a single seat.

Old Samad also conveniently dropped a few names like Burhanuddin al-Helmi, Ahmad Boestamam, Mat Kilau. The latter fought against British influence but was not part of the Indonesian-leaning groups the former two were part of. In fact, Burhanuddin was a member of the militant KMM that was bent on overthrowing the British by force so Malaya could become part of Melayu/Indonesia Raya. He also led Kesatuan Rakyat Indonesia Semenanjung (KRIS) right after KMM was banned, and then the PKMM. Boestamam headed the Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), the youth front of the PKMM. After the PKMM was banned for being the Communist Party of Malaya’s United Front and soon after he was released from prison, Boestamam set up the Partai Rakyat Malaya (PRM) in November of 1955 which during its formative years was based on the struggles of Sukarno and subscribed to the Pan-Malaya/Indonesia nationalism.

So to whom did Burhanuddin al-Helmi and Boestamam look up to? Sukarno. Was Sukarno a Malayan? The answer is a definite no.

But like I have been saying all along, who are we independent from? The answer is FEUDALISM, the very system that brought the British advisors in. On 31st August 1957 the Malay rulers handed over power to their subjects, and freed them from having to depend on the British. The British had never colonised Malaya de jure save for the Straits Settlements. If the pro-BN say that we were colonised in any way, they are agreeing to the point made by their opposition counterpart that the Tunku, Tun Razak et al were all British lackeys (Barua British) as the respective states’ administration would have come under the purview of the British. Dare they chance that thought?

For Old Samad, I only have one pantun for him:

“Tersipu-sipu meminta barang,
Menggigil-gigil sebab teruja;
Cukuplah awak menipu orang,
Kubur dah panggil, usia dah senja.”

Was Malaysia a British Colony? The answer is NO. This article was originally produced last year during the Merdeka celebration month here but I thought that it is best to share this again with you.
—————————————————————————————————————————

In the Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 3126 dated 10 November 1893, there was a column entitled: A BRIGHTON SCANDAL. BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT AGAINST A SULTAN. It tells of a certain Miss Jenny Mighell suing a Mr Albert Baker for breaching a promise to marry her. Albert Baker was the name assumed by HRH Sultan Sir Abu Bakar ibni Daing Ibrahim, the Sultan of Johor from 1862 to 1895.

The case set a legal precedence in nations belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations that the ruler of a sovereign state or nation that is a protectorate of the British Empire cannot be tried in a court of law. Johor, in 1885, had signed a treaty of protection with the United Kingdom.

Collectively known as “British Malaya” the Malay states were unlike “British India.” British India started off as a business venture by the East India Company when it established a factory in Bengal in 1612. However, the “company rule” by the East India Company ended with the Government of India Act in 1858 following the Indian rebellion a year earlier. It was ruled directly by the Crown as a Colonial Possession and known thereafter as the Empire of India. The Indian princely states were allowed some measure autonomy in exchange for British suzerainty.

The Malay states comprised of three groups namely the:

1) Federated Malay States: a group of four states – Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and Perak, that formed a federation that enjoyed the protection of the British in exchange for an “Advisor;”
2) Unfederated Malay States: Johor, Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah (and later Perlis after it was independent of Kedah) that did not form a single grouping. Johor signed a treaty of protection with the British in 1885, while the rest became the British Protected States after Bangkok transferred its rights over these states to the British via the Bangkok Treaty of 1909. The Unfederated Malay States lacked common institutions and were not recognised as a single state under International Law.

3) The Straits Settlements – areas along the Malay Peninsula that came under direct British Crown rule (Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore) after being taken over from the East India Company. Initially, the Dindings and Pangkor islands formed part of the Straits Settlements via the Treaty of Pangkor in 1874, but the British gave it up as Pangkor did not serve the British’s economic interest. It was established in 1826 by the East India Company following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, but became a Crown Colony on 1st April 1867.

Therefore, the Malay states were never colonies save for Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore that came under direct British rule.

Both the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States had an “Advisor” appointed who came under the respective Sultan’s or Raja’s payroll to advise on the management of the state’s day-to-day affairs. They were called the “Residents.” They were there in exchange for the protection provided by Britain and do represent an indirect rule by the Crown. While it may be argued that the real rulers were the Advisors, but that is more on a case-to-case basis. Some may be pushy, like Birch who was subsequently murdered for his overwhelming influence in the Perak courts, while some are loyal to their paymaster(s).

One such person was Frank Athelstane Swettenham who first became the Resident of Selangor before convincing the Rulers of Selangor, Pahang, Perak and Negeri Sembilan to form a federation and became the first Resident-General of the Federated Malay States, serving from 1896 to 1901. Swettenham brought about development to the four states and introduced better civil administration. He was one of close to 40 former British Empire officials who were OPPOSED to the Malayan Union on the grounds that the Malayan Union went against the Atlantic Charter (the Atlantic Charter among others stated that there was to be NO territorial aggrandizement after the Second World War). Swettenham, as other Advisors, were on the payroll of the Sultans. There were other British officers who were on the payroll of the Sultans. One example is Major L.Vears, who was the aide-de-camp to Almarhum Sultan Iskandar of Perak.

If you remember the first paragraph, the United Kingdom recognised Sultan Abu Bakar as the reigning sovereign of the country of Johor, a protectorate of the Crown of the United Kingdom, and thus enjoyed the privileges extended to members of royal families. Johor, as other Malay states were at that time, sovereign states, ruled by its own rulers albeit with an appointed Advisor (Johor accepted an Advisor only in 1904). Sultan Abu Bakar and Queen Victoria became lifetime friends; not as a subject, but as real friends who corresponded with each other on a frequent basis.

Another example of “British-Malaya” being a collection of independent states is the donation of the people of Malaya towards the construction of a battleship aptly named “HMS Malaya” during the First World War. Launched in 1915, HMS Malaya served during the Battle of Jutland, and throughout the Second World War before she was sold for scrap in 1948. Her bell can be seen at the East India Club in St James’s Square, London. Among the battleships that served the Royal Navy, only HMS Malaya flew a different ensign: the red-white-black-yellow ensign of the Federated Malay States!

We have now established the fact that the Malay states were never colonised by the British, and that the Residents (Advisors) were appointed and on the payroll of the Malay Sultans. Therefore, those who waged war on the Malayan, and subsequently Malaysian, people are nothing less than traitors to their homeland.

Whether or not the Advisors were the real rulers of the Malay states, we must keep an open mind. Some may have spoken with condescending tone, some may have been more polite. Comments on history are often made by people who are emotionally-scarred, and may be biased as to how they see things, but history cannot be based on emotions – it must be based on facts.

You may now ask, if we were not colonised, then whose flag did we bring down on 31st August 1957, and what are we independent of?

Feudalism!

On 31st August 1957, the Rulers of the Malay States handed over power to the people of the Federation of Malaya through its Chief Minister, thus ending the need to be dependent on the Advisors from the British Empire, turning this land into one with democratic principles with Constitutional Monarchy.

Now that we are independent, perhaps the Department of Museums and Antiquities would like to ask for the bell of HMS Malaya to be brought back to the country that sponsored the ship.

As a build-up to Merdeka Day, I will reproduce my “The Road to Merdeka” series that was published last year. The re-publishing of the series is inspired by a recent statement by DAP’s strongman, Karpal Singh, on the issue of Hudud and the Federal Constitution, which I shall address at the end of this series.

The first of this series is called “Persekutuan Tanah China:”
—————————————————————————————-

I know it is an odd title. When I say China, I do not mean the Chinese. I mean the country, China. This posting contains facts that many, including those from UMNO, do not know.

Before I go on, I want you to remember this important fact throughout this posting:

The Alliance won 51 of 52 seats in the 1955 General Election.

For a brief period during the Second World War, Sumatera was taken away from the control of Java and was placed under the Japanese Administration in Malaya. However, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, the Japanese mooted an idea to Sukarno for Malaya to be included in a declaration of independence by Indonesia BEFORE the Allies could retake both Malaya and Indonesia.

On 13th August 1945, Sukarno and Drs Hatta went to Taiping on their way back to Jakarta from Saigon and met up with Ibrahim Yaakob and Burhanuddin Helmi to discuss on the idea of Malaya joining Indonesia Raya. This idea was not new to Ibrahim Yaakob. A Bugis by descent and an idolizer of Sukarno, Ibrahim was a member of the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM), a radical nationalist group formed in 1938 to overthrow the British by force and unite Malaya with Indonesia under the banner of Melayu Raya. This meeting in Taiping was also attended by one Major General Hirokichi Umezu of the Imperial Japanese Army. The Imperial Japanese government at the time recognised the leaders of Indonesia. Ibrahim was also a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Japanese Giyuugun (Volunteer Army) that was formed in Java. Before the Indonesia Raya idea could be pushed forward, the Japanese government surrendered to the Allies two days later.

Sukarno however continued to push for the Indonesia Raya concept but told that the inclusion of Malaya would not be easy as they would have to fight against two major powers of the day: the British and the Dutch; and asked Ibrahim to continue his fight for the inclusion of Malaya from Java. On 19th August 1945, together with Hassan Manan (a graduate from the Sultan Idris Teachers College, and fellow KMM member), Ibrahim, his wife and brother-in-law were flown to Jakarta in a Japanese military aircraft to escape the British.

Together with Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Burhanuddin Helmi then formed the Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), a republican association, on 17th October 1945, taking over where Ibrahim’s KMM had left. This got PKMM at loggerheads with the British. PKMM was then joined by other Jakarta-leaning members such as Shamsiah Fakeh, who led PKMM’s women wing, AWAS (Angkatan Wanita Sedar); and Ahmad Boestamam who led the youth wing, API (Angkatan Pemuda Insaf). Onn Jaafar, who was then a District Officer in Batu Pahat, was against Melayu Raya/Indonesia Raya as he did not want Malaya to be subsumed by a Javanese master. It was during this period too that Kiai Salleh, a respected religious leader from Batu Pahat, rose to fight the Communist Party of Malaya’s Bintang Tiga menace.

When the British formed the Malayan Union in 1946, PKMM together with its fraternal organisations API, AWAS and BATAS; and the non-Malay organisation, Malayan Democratic Union (MDU), quickly supported the move by the British. PKMM, being republican in nature, supported the Malayan Union because it was opposed to the idea of a Malaya ruled by the Malay rulers while MDU supported the idea of an immediate citizenship for all immigrants. As history has proven, intense pressure by UMNO caused the British to abandon the Malayan Union. The Malayan Union was then replaced by the Federated Malay States in 1948.

It was also at this juncture that the British offered independence, but was rejected by UMNO. The reasons for rejecting this offer were that the Malays were at that time a minority in Malaya; the Malays lacked education (they were given elementary education until Standard Six); the Malays were also not involved in the mainstream economic activities. It was not until later, when General Sir Gerald Templer objected to the British offer to Malayans for a self-rule Malaya for its assistance in fighting the communist, that UMNO declined that offer and went instead for the independence of Malaya.

Where was PAS during this time? PAS was embedded within UMNO. There was no PAS. PAS came about when none of the supporters of the founder of PAS was appointed to the respective state’s legislative council, following the formation of the Federated Malay States. They left UMNO probably in 1951, and then formed the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party (PMIP) in 1955 to contest in the first General Elections where they won one seat.

Despite having seen that UMNO and MCA could set aside differences and work together in the first Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council Elections in 1952, Templer was quoted by the Straits Times on the 19th May 1953 to have said the following:

“It would be a tragedy, not only for Malaya, but for South-East Asia, if power was handed over so precipitately that the remarkable progress now being made in all direction is thrown out of gear, to say the least of it, quite apart from the communal difficulties which might, or would arise.”

In November 1955, after the victory of the Alliance inthe first General Elections, Tunku Abdul Rahman who was the Federation of Malaya’s first Chief Minister, went to Jakarta to call upon President Sukarno. The Tunku put forth Malaya’s idea to pursue an independence from the British. Enter our long-lost character Ibrahim Yaakob, who went to meet Tunku there, pushing forward his ambition to have Malaya’s independence within the framework of Indonesia Raya.

Let us fast forward a bit to the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Although the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia gained the consent of the Yang DiPertuan Agong on 29th August 1963, objections by Indonesia and the Philippines over the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak, and the conduct of referendums in the two states by the United Nations pushed the date further to 16th September 1963. It was also a coincidence that 16th September is the birthday of Lee Kuan Yew, the then-Chief Minister of Singapore.

Indonesia, already opposed to the independence of Malaya in 1957, was further aflamed by the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak into Malaysia. Sukarno was influenced to teach Malaysia a lesson by D.N Aidid, Leader of the Indonesian Communist Party, and by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Subandrio, who went to China to meet its Premier, Zhou En-Lai. Subandrio, an alleged communist, was very close to Premier Zhou, and discussed the possibility of lynching and splitting Malaysia, and requested for support from China. The plan was for an Indonesia Raya and a greater China where all Malay island nations (that possibly include the Philippines as well) would be under Indonesia Raya, while all mainland nations including the Peninsula of Malaysia would come under China.

Indonesia at the time was supported by the communists in the Soviet Union. This episode saw the withdrawal of Soviet support (the Soviet was against the confrontation with Malaysia) and a cautioned-support from China. Supporting the Indonesians then would be a positive move for China as Indonesia had the second largest communist party outside of the Soviet Union. Chinese arms started trickling into Indonesia by 1964. Had it not been for the help from the Commonwealth Forces, Peninsula Malaysia would probably be a province of China now. Chin Peng, who was residing in China then, also ordered the CPM members to assist the Indonesian armed forces against Malaysia and the Commonwealth.

The rest, I would say, is history. Ibrahim Yaakob resumed the name Iskandar Kamel and was made a Minister under Sukarno rule. After the attempted coup by the communists in Indonesia failed, he withdrew from his post and died in Jakarta in 1979, aged 78. He was listed on his tombstone as Iskandar Kamel Agastya (IBHY), Leftenan-Kolonel Purnawirawan NRP 26217. In 1973, the late Tun Razak allowed him to return briefly to Malaysia. In an interview during that visit, Ibrahim Yaakob admitted to being a double-agent for both the British and the Japanese.

Chin Peng, in an interview in Singapore, had said that the CPM, as a fraternal organisation of the Communist Party of China, enjoyed full support from China for the establishment of a satellite-communist state in our country. He was given the task to fulfill three levels of achievements in the 1950s, namely the:

1) Support on the local level,
2) Support on the national level, and,
3) Support on the international level.

He achieved the support on two of these levels: Local – he had strong support from the Chinese community. He had support on the International level – the support from China. What he did not have in the 1950s was the support on the National level – there was no support from the general Malay population. Hence, the only way for the CPM to remain relevant was to incite the non-Malay population to work against the Malays, who were portrayed as being the political masters of Malaya. Does this ring a bell? It is deja vu all over again in present day Malaysia.

If you remember at the beginning of this posting, I asked you to remember this important fact:

The Alliance won 51 of 52 seats in the 1955 General Election.

In 1955, the Alliance won the first General Elections of the Federation of Malaya. Then, the non-Malays were still in the process of being naturalised (provided they could speak Bahasa Melayu and met the number of years criteria) hence most did not make it into the electoral roll. Therefore, it could be said that the voice of the Malays were in support of the Alliance – not PAS, not Parti Negara (that was formed by Dato’ Onn after leaving UMNO), not PPP, not PKMM, not CPM (the latter two of course were illegal organisations then and were not elligible to contest).

So, what does that say about people like Mat Indera, Abdullah CD, Rashid Maidin, Shamsiah Fakeh et al., the so-called nationalists who fought on the side of the communists? A simple malay term to describe them would be none other than “TALI BARUT KOMUNIS” or the communists’ lackeys, who lost all clout fighting for independence when the Federation of Malaya achieved independence in 1957. The elections results also prove that the malays disapproved of them fighting for the communists from the onset of the Malayan Emergency in 1948, and definitely disapproved of Mat Indera’s slaughter of the men, women and children of the Bukit Kepong Police Station.

None of those mentioned in the previous paragraph own any right whatsoever to be called “Freedom Fighters.”

——————————————————————————————————-

In ending this posting, I can safely say that I have done six postings on several chapters of the history of our nation versus none from the Ministry of Information. There seems to be no check and balance by the Ministry of Education to provide a full course in the nation’s history: all that the children read are watered-down versions of the nation’s history, structured so they could perform in the history examinations without understanding the spirit behind each and every event. There also seems to be inaction from the Home Ministry on seditious remarks made by certain quarters, even to the extent of belittling the institution of the Yang DiPertuan Agong and the Raja-Raja Melayu, as well as the glorifying of an illegal organisation – an act that is covered extensively in several legal Acts.

If we forget our history, we will become a nation without a soul – and this is now all too evident in a weary 54-year old Malaysia.

(The original article can be found here.

Question One: what oil is being produced in Kelantan waters?

Answer: None.

No, I am not sorry for my answer because the truth is just that: there is no oil produced within Kelantan waters.

Firstly, let us revisit the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966.  Section 4(3) of that Act states the following:

(3) The Petroleum Authority shall –

(a) in relation to an application in respect of an area of on-shore land, be the Ruler or the Yang DiPertua Negeri of the State in which the area of on-shore land is situated;

and

(b) in relation to an application in respect of an area of off-shore land, be the Yang DiPertuan Agong.

Bear with me, this can be technical.

The section above clearly defines that any matters pertaining to on-shore land comes under the jurisdiction of the respective State, while anything to do with off-shore land, comes under Federal purview.  But what are on-shore and off-shore lands?  In the Interpretation section (Section 2), the following is said:

“off-shore land” means the area of the continental shelf; “on-shore land” includes foreshores and submarine areas beneath the territorial waters of the States. “Land”, in relation to the States of Peninsular Malaysia, means any area of on-shore land and includes off-shore land adjacent to and contiguous with on-shore land and, in relation to the States of Sabah and Sarawak, means area of off-shore land only.

What does the above mean?  It means that the States of Sabah and Sarawak has an autonomous say about the development of on-shore oil fields, independent of the Petroleum Authority.  This is because Sabah and Sarawak were given the rights via the Colonial Government Orders in Council, 1954, that honoured the agreements signed between Sabah and Sarawak with SHELL way before the Independence and the formation of Malaysia.  What is then the off-shore land?  Isn’t that included in the territorial waters of Kelantan?

The Section 2 of the Continental Shelf Act of 1966 states:

“continental shelf” means the sea-bed and subsoil of submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Malaysia but beyond the limits of the territorial waters of the States…”

Now, we have something new here.  The term “territorial waters of the States” does not equal “territorial waters of Malaysia” as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS).  UNCLOS states that “every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention” (Article 3, UNCLOS).

The Emergency Ordinance (Essential Powers) No. 7, 1969 also mentions this in Section 3(1) and (2) with some remedies pertaining to the Strait of Malacca and the Sulu and Celebes seas.  But it also goes on to say that “For the purpose of the Continental Shelf Act 1966, Petroleum Mining Act 1966, the National Land Code, and any written law relating to land in force in Sabah and Sarawak, any reference to territorial waters therein in relation to any territory be construed as a reference to such part of the sea adjacent to the coast thereof not exceeding three nautical miles measured from the low water mark.” (Section 4(2) of the Emergency Ordinance (Essential Powers) No. 7, 1969).

Therefore, any State forming the Peninsular of Malaysia, that has any drilling platform at sea not exceeding three nautical miles (5.46km) has the right to claim oil royalty from the Federal Government.  Look at the map below and tell me which field is within three nautical miles of any land in Kelantan?

But UNCLOS mentioned the word “State”, some may cry.  In Article 1, para 2 (1) of the UNCLOS, “State Parties” means States that have consented to be bound by this Convention and for which this Convention is in force.  Historically, Kelantan was a vassal state belonging to the Kingdom of Siam until the Anglo-Siamese treaty of 1909, that saw Kelantan becoming part of the Unfederated Malay States under a British adviser for a while until the Japanese invasion in December 1941.  By 1st February of 1948, Kelantan became part of the Federation of Malaya and together with the other Peninsular states, attained independence on 31st August 1957.

The first of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea was held only in 1958 in Geneva (Geneva Convention of Continental Shelf, 1958), and no way could have Kelantan, as an independent and sovereign state, consented to the UNCLOS.  Therefore, UNCLOS applies collectively to Malaysia as a recognised State.  Of course, the Petroleum Development Act, 1974 never mentions anything on territorial waters; but in Section 2(1) of the Act, it is stated that “the entire ownership in, and the exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges of exploring, exploiting, winning, and obtaining petroleum whether onshore and offshore of Malaysia shall be vested in a Corporation to be incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 or under the law relating to incorporation of companies.” Refer to the definition of onshore and offshore in Section 2 of the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966.

The Act defines the Corporation in Section 3(1): “Notwithstanding Section 22 of the Companies Act 1965, relating to the names of companies, the Corporation shall be styled as the Petroleum Nasional Berhad or in short form PETRONAS.”  Therefore, PETRONAS has the right to all the activities described in Section 2(1) of the Petroleum Development Act.

As a government-owned Corporation, it is only right that PETRONAS pays the Federal Government and the Government of any relevant State as may be agreed between the Corporation and the relevant State’s Government in return for the ownership and rights, powers, liberties and privileges vested in it by the Act.  This is stated in Section 4 of the same Act.

Terengganu and Kelantan are not the only Peninsular states that are gifted with petroleum blocks.  As a matter of fact, all states are, including those on the West coast.  Terengganu entered an agreement with PETRONAS on the 22nd March, 1975.  In fact, oil was first discovered offshore Terengganu by Esso Exploration Inc in 1973.  Had PETRONAS not entered an agreement with Terengganu, the latter would still be backwards in economic nature, as Esso had only entered a production-sharing contract (PSC) with PETRONAS for winning oil beyond Terengganu’s territorial waters.  This agreement, said the then-Terengganu’s PAS Government Exco member, Mustafa Ali in November 2000, “did not specifically refer to the payments as oil royalty.”  However, the then-PAS-led State Government claimed that a letter in 1987 confirmed the agreement of a “royalty” of some sort.  This is the same basis that the PAS-led Kelantan state government is claiming the “royalty” payment based on an agreement the State also signed with PETRONAS in 1975.  The only difference between Kelantan and Terengganu is that, PETRONAS uses the latter as its production and storage base, while there isn’t a single refinery built in the former. The 1975 agreement between PETRONAS and Terengganu states:

Petronas shall make to the government cash payment in the form of yearly sum amounting to the equivalent of five percent of the value of the petroleum won and saved in Terengganu and sold by Petronas or its agents or contractors during the period provided in Clause 2.

Therefore, Terengganu has a better locus standi than Kelantan does in asking for some form of payment.

The act of PETRONAS giving payment to any state for oil won beyond the state’s territorial waters can therefore be seen as a token rather than a royalty, bearing in mind that anything beyond the three-nautical mile limit belongs to the Federal Government.  Logically, if the oil belongs to the Federal Government, then the state has no right to ask for the payment for transferring to PETRONAS something that does not belong to it.  Not unless the state is either Sabah or Sarawak.

There is also no guiding principle anywhere within the Petroleum Development Act that the number must be five percent of the value of petroleum won and SAVED IN ANY STATE as mentioned in the agreement between PETRONAS and Terengganu and Kelantan.  The oil won beyond the territorial waters of these states were never, and will never be the States’ God-given oil and gas as claimed by some.